Very convenient to hold a vote when I'm not around...
It wasn't concluded yet. And the vote wasn't started because of your absence, but because of a message to the list. Martijn, the tricky situation here is that everyone on the team - and I'm pretty sure including the ones who didn't vote - is very much against having this constructor. VERY much. It leads to a dangerous situation and as a message earlier this week showed, people ARE using it the wrong way. God knows how many. This is not just a matter of not reading the docs for people, this is a matter of the API guiding in the wrong direction. Also, if documentation was enough, why think about API design in the first place? Also, comparing with methods that have the 'do not use this' warnings in them is just plain bs, as we have such 'constructs' because there was alternative to them, mainly because Java doesn't have a friends construction.
-1 on removing the constructor. Just as Jonathan...
Great, another veto. Jonathan was against removing the class altogether (which I am personally +1 for, but not that strongly to make a lot of trouble). He stated he uses the IPageLink constructor a lot, while this vote is for removing the Page constructor. The only alternative I can see here is to leave the constructor in - a half baked solution which I would hate nevertheless - but put a @deprecated tag with a big fat warning in it. Regards, Eelco
